Littlebrother is watching you

If you happen to be reading this article online from your computer at work, your boss may be reading over your shoulder-electronically. New technologies allow employers to check whether employees are wasting time at recreational Web sites or sending unprofessional e-mails. But when do an employer's legitimate business interests become an unacceptable invasion of worker privacy?

Last year, a software package came on the market that allows employers to monitor their workers' Internet use. According to Sculman, ‘it employs a database of 45,000 Web sites that are categorized as "productive," "unproductive," or "neutral," and rates employees based on their browsing’. It identifies the most frequent users and the most popular sites. It's called LittleBrother.

Though the title is tongue-in-cheek, LittleBrother does represent the tremendous capabilities technology has provided for employers to keep track of what their work force is up to. There are also programs to search e-mails and programs to block objectionable Web sites. Beyond installing monitoring software, your boss can simply go into your hard drive, check your stored history to see where you've been on the Net, and read your e-mail.

Did you delete that message you sent about his incompetence? Not good enough. The e-mail trash bin probably still exists on the server, and there are plenty of computer consultants who can retrieve the incriminating message.

Watch your moves at work because along with Big Brother, Littlebrother is watching you.

MySpace, YourSpace, HisSpace

Social networking could not have been the topic of any discussion a mere ten years ago for the simple reason that it did not exist. To be sure, we already had e-mail and the Internet, which meant that many of us created pretty horrible Web sites that were all about us, our likes and dislikes and most of all, our dreams and desires, because, back then, that was the only thing to do.

Today we do something like that but rely on Web sites like MySpace and Facebook, and many others to let our family, friends and the rest of the world find out everything about us.
What private information should I share on my virtual wall? What consequences should I expect from the fact that such private information is now available to the world, not just the people I know?

This is just a sampling of the many questions facing us in this brave new world of social networking which is having an increasingly significant impact on allocation and the lives of young teenagers and adults.

The information that is released to the world can have a huge impact on the relationships you develop through these networking sites, along with your safety. At what point do you decide that information is inappropriate for the strangers of the world to see… Do you?

Cyber bullying

Following on from my last post on schoolyard V technological bullying, I want to raise something I heard on the Morning Show this morning. As a result of the escalating abuse through technological devices, teenage Girlfriend Magazine has launched the campaign “I DELETE BULLIES’. It is a campaign that has initiated the first Code of Conduct for online behaviour. Such code has been suggested to address the alarming statistics of online bullying. In a survey by Girlfriend magazine 1/3 of children surveyed recorded being ‘sexually abused’ online. 80% of all surveyed said they had been the victims of some sort of bullying and abuse. The anonymity aspect on online networks gives users the virtual dutch courage, they feel they have a right to bully and think they can get away with it. ‘I DELETE BULLIES’ particularly incorporates a set of guidelines that outlines when online behaviour crosses that line, it suggests pathways to reporting such behaviour. My Space has also been seen to promote such initiative and has launched a link on their website where users can record such inappropriate behaviour.

Technology: Re-birth of Bullying

The advances in our technology have greatly changed the structure of our lives, made those everyday tasks just that little bit simpler. Mmmm how grand, right?
Not so!
Modern technology has brought a whole new meaning to the concept of bullying.
“You are a fat pimple face and no-one likes you” is a message that many of us may not be hearing for the first time. We have all at one stage or another experienced bullying. We were either the one who was the bully, the victim of bullying or the quiet mouse in the corner who observed the act of bullying. When I was going through high school there was always those school yard conflicts, name calling and basically verbal teasing but once you walked outside those gates and through your front door you didn’t have to deal with it until the next day. I suppose you got a break. These days young children do not have such luxury. Through technological advancements bullying is making its way into all aspects of a child’s life. They are complaining to parents, friends, family and teachers that they are be bullied through text messages on the mobile phones and through their social networking service.

The news segment on sunrise this morning quoted that 7 out of 10 teenagers are either being bullied or know someone who is. You would think children have enough to deal with in the school yard without being the victims of such abuse in the safety of their own home.

A Degree or a Computer

Are bloggers journalists?

The advent of our internet has provided many opportunities for industries and enabled individuals, businesses and journalists to reach extended audiences. It has allowed the average Joe to share his beliefs and views on the world through online blogs, mass-emails, webcasts, websites etc. But are bloggers considered journalists?

Before the establishment of the World Wide Web I imagine answering the question of what is a journalist would have been quite simple. An article from CS Monitor states ‘‘Until the Internet, journalists were typically attached to an established organisation that could afford to own and run a newspaper, magazine, radio or TV station, TV network, or cable news outlet’ (CSMonitor. 2005). They were associated with disseminating information – “News” – for the public to consume and maybe even learn from.

Now, with new technologies the question is more contestable. With the internet, the cost of delivering the news is minimal. The idea that a journalist is associated with disseminating information and news to the public is now questionable. Now almost anyone can set up a web log ("blog") or send a mass e-mail and present themselves as someone who surveys the public scene and presents “news”.

So are our regular bloggers journalists? Journalists that have merely purchased a computer and have started to type out their emotions, comment on the world, public policy and international issues.

Ironic finding

The trend in my blog posts seems to be technological addictions- Obsessive use of mobile phones and the internet, Social networking programs, cyber pornography and bizarre online behaviour.

It seems this obsession with technology has been widely recognised and often described as an ‘impulsive-control problem’. Net addiction.com is an internet addiction recovery centre, where Dr. Kimberly Young has developed specific criteria to diagnose internet addiction in particular. Users can follow the criteria and if they recognise the criteria reflects their internet patterns they can further follow the prompts to treatment services and recovery resources.

I find it quite ironic that this site seems to be treating internet addicts via the internet... Should Alcohol addicts be treated by pub crawls? I understand that maybe information on internet and other technological addictions should be available on the internet and via other such technologies but should we really be treating these addicts via sources they are already addicted to?

Confession...

I have to confess, in the last week or so I have given in to the ‘friend’ request emails I’ve been receiving in my hotmail account. I have been lured into the world of Facebook. For the last two weeks I’ve been receiving friend requests to join Facebook from people I haven’t seen for 3-5 years. Earlier this week I established an account and can’t believe how easy it is to find people and friends.

I tried to set up a MySpace account earlier this year and found it so time consuming – to find friends, to design a fancy background, curser and establish a visually appealing space. I gave up and haven’t visited the page since I made the account.

Facebook I found different. As I have described in past posts, I’m not the most technologically savvy person in the world and Facebook was more ‘user friendly’ towards the likes of me.

Facebook is a social networking website that allows people to communicate with their friends and exchange information. Launched on February 4 2004, Facebook was founded by Mark Zuckerberg, a former member of the Harvard Class of 2006. Initially Facebook’s membership was restricted to students of Harvard College. It eventually expanded to include individuals with a university email address, and since September 2006 it now extends its membership to anyone holding any email account.

I have not become addicted to the social networking site and can’t see my usage becoming obsessive. It has merely allowed me to catch up and communicate with friends from my past. In past posts I have been known to criticise socially networking sites, such as these, but my criticism has recently moved to the individuals that let these technological networks become the better of them. Again, I conclude is Facebook and MySpace the blame for an individual’s constant use of such spaces – does our technological progress create or merely enable distracting and, at times, disturbing behavior.

The Crackberry

“ If your hipbone is connected to your BlackBerry or your thighbone is connected to your mobile phone, those vibrations you're feeling in the car, in your pyjamas, in the shower, may be coming from your head bone”.

Some mobile phone addicts and BlackBerry junkies have reported feeling ‘vibrations’ when there are none, or feeling as if they're wearing a mobile phone when they're not.

The mobile phone is now a widely used medium for communication. Its additional features – internet compatibility, SMS, MMS, personalised ringtones, screensavers, message tones and phone covers – and the super-cheap phone plans have increasingly replaced the landline phone. Your mobile phone is now considered part of your identity, a form of self-expression and social class. But when does your blackberry turn into a crackberry? At what point do you come addicted to your mobile? Are you constantly checking for instant messages, emails, taking your phone to bed, and finding you are spending more time twinkling your fingers on the keypad then talking to the person next to you?

Maybe instead of Alcohols Anonymous, people soon will be admitting themselves into rehab to escape the ever increasing crackberry addiction.

Mmmm....technology?

I was searching for things to blog about and I came across this ‘weird’ creation the internet has enabled. It’s called second life – and it is just that – it is a 3-D virtual world entirely created by its online Residents. Since opening to the public in 2003, it has grown explosively and today is inhabited by millions of Residents from around the globe.

It is a world online where you create your own identity, build, buy and sell your own homes and land, buy your food, clothes, and shop with real second life dollars – Linden Dollars. This is a world outside the real world and according to some of the residents inside second life; they spend their days in front of their computer indulging in this life. Some say ‘they prefer it to the outside world’.

Is this a matter of ignorance, is this a way for people to ignore the outside world – the real world. Is this healthy? Fair enough, online social networks like MySpace and face book maybe restricting real conversations, replacing f2f communication but people who engage in these networks still participate in the outside world. They still live, buy and sell real homes, shop in real shops and receive real mail from their real mail box outside their real home.

In previous posts I have raised the question whether technology, such as the internet, has actually facilitated or created various behaviours. But, in my opinion, this has just gone too far... it’s a tad on the ridiculous side.

Facilitating or Creating?

Pinning back ears, removing birthmarks and repairing harelips are among the few types of plastic surgery that have long been considered socially acceptable, even a ''public service'' - performed to address an obvious need. But now a Sydney plastic surgeon has returned from the United States with two new procedures that also have a definite target market - lip repositioning and lowering of the hairline.

Lip positioning involves manipulating the muscles and moving the top lip downwards to reduce an excessively gummy smile. Lowering of the hairline involves moving the entire frontal hairline forward on the scalp to reduce the look of an excessively high forehead.

Dr Warwick Nettle will be the first to offer these procedures in Australia and, according to one of the American plastic surgeons he trained with, there is a great demand for them. ''This (hairline) procedure is not widely offered but is very popular,'' Dr Sheldon Kabaker said. ''I have been seeing patients from Australia for years.''

Do you think these types of surgery come under the ''corrective'' or the ''vanity'' banner? Is a gummy smile disfiguring or merely displeasing? Is a high forehead an issue or something that could (should?) be lived with?

Is our technology fixing problems that don’t exist? Are they creating problems that really aren’t problems? Instead of enhancing our life are they diminishing self esteem – something that’s vital for a healthy life!

Or again, is our technology merely facilitating such behaviour... not creating it?

The Government or The Family...

(In response to a comment made on one of my previous posts).
Is internet control a matter for the Government or the family? It is fantastic that the government has made some effort to control the uncontrollable – the Internet. Issuing free filters to Australian households and public libraries is the first step to protecting our children, our young friends and family members. It has also raised the question what next? And my answer is the next step lies within the home – lies with the family and the parents. Governments can supply computer programs and filters to deter online adult material being viewed but they can’t stand over your child’s shoulder and watch their every online move, every website they open and every online conversation they enter into. Parents however can.

The comment made on my earlier post raised an important point about the internet facilitating certain behaviours but not causing these such behaviours. I tend to agree. The internet is a vast space and the unanswerable question is can it really be controlled. Maybe the internet can not be controlled at a government level and as a whole, although it’s nice to know the Australian government looks like they are trying. On the other hand, an individual’s use, and certainly a child’s internet experience, can be controlled by parents and carers being aware, being stern, keeping a watch and communicating with their child.

Keeping Kids Safe

I was watching beyond tomorrow today and there was one segment on the invention of the ‘kinderguard’. It is a GPS device invented by a father of three, living in Belfast. His invention was inspired by the famous kidnapping and murders of young girls Holly Wells and Jesse Chapman, and is primarily aimed to deter child kidnapping. The GPS device entails a built in simcard – like the one we find in our mobile phones – and using global positioning it sends data from the device back to a central server. It works using censors on the skin of a child’s wrist and allows parents to track their child’s moves. Like all GPS devices it has a way of knowing where you are but the unique aspect of this invention is it knows exactly who you are. Therefore parents can detect when the device has been passed on to another person or taken off the child’s wrist. The ‘Kinderguard’ also has an application known as the ‘curfew zone’ so a parent knows when their child strays from a safe area. Other features allow the central server to send messages to the device if a child is late for an appointment or simply late home, this acts as a reminder and the child can than respond using the buttons on the device. The press of the first button tells the parent they are ok. Pressing both buttons at the same time alerts the parents they are in trouble and need urgent help.
It is said such device will be available world wide in the next three years. Further improvements of this device will include embedding the technological device in jewellery and clothing, which is said to be more suitable for children. Other ideas extend to using similar devices for people on parole but at the moment it is said to be a means of keeping kids safe.

Are the advances in our technology allowing the invention of extreme devices, extreme measures and invasions of privacy? ‘Kinderguard’ simply believe such device keeps kids safe and merely alerts parents when they are not.

In my opinion this is a fantastic method for keeping young children safe if it is used on suitable people at suitable ages or in suitable circumstances. It is a big world out there and there are some nasty people, if this device was available would such children as Holly Wells and Jesse Chapman still be alive... Would there or wouldn’t there be a Madeleine McCann case?

Is it or isn't it 'cool'

I went home last weekend, to see my parents and to do the family thing for my birthday. As I walked into the kitchen there was a packet of vanilla flavoured cigars on the stove. My parents aren’t big smokers- they are the ‘social smoker’ type, if there is such a thing. And for as long as I can remember I’ve been dead against the filthy habit- The annoying child that threw out statistics on cancer victims and the affects of smoking, while sitting around the table on family BBQ’s and picnics. But last weekend I gave in. I gave in to the clever marketing of the tobacco industry, and sparked one up. It didn’t at all taste like the revolting stench a cigar or cigarette usually smells like. It was vanilla. There is so much talk and money spent on anti-smoking advertising these days. The advances in our technology have allowed the government to launch multi-million dollar campaigns against tobacco smoking. In my opinion these ads aren’t targeted at the 80 year old who after 60 years is still drawing on that fag. They’re targeted at our youth and aim to discourage the initiation of an addictive habit. However, these ads are contradicted by the advances in cigarettes- the launch of strawberry, vanilla, apple and chocolate flavours- The availability of bright and funky exterior colours. I gave in and ignored everything I believed about the cigarette on the basis of it looked different, it looked appealing. I am not addicted, but I liked it. And I suppose if I was sitting around a table with friends and family and someone brought out some flavoured cigars, I’d give it another go. Tobacco and cigarettes are becoming ‘cooler’, they are more appealing to the younger generation. In my circumstance the anti-smoking advertisements and campaigns did not once enter my mind when I lit that vanilla flavoured cigar. Every multi-million dollar anti-smoking campaign that I had ever been exposed to was overridden by a $12 appealing tabacco stick.
Has our technology allowed for teenagers to be more informed about the dangers and affects of tobacco smoking, or has it simply made the habit more appealing?

Our Government- protecting our families

In the mail last week I received evidence of John Howards crack down on the scourge of Internet pornography. The free internet filter is part of a $116.6 million package to protect Australian families online. Finally there is a sign of internet regulation- A sign that along with other technological advancements, our internet access and viewing can be monitored. As part of this package and Along with the free filter I received in the mail, there are various initiatives in place, like providing Australian libraries with these free filters so public computers can become child-friendly zones. According to Senator Helen Coonen ‘this is the single biggest commitment to protecting families online in the history of the internet in Australia’ (Coonen. 2006). I suppose this is proof that the Australian government recognises the ethical implications that have risen from the revolutionary growth of the internet. It is a step towards answering my last question I proposed in my last post... “How can the internet be possibly monitored now?”. This package is a positive step towards providing a safer internet experience in the grasp of Australian families. Thumbs up to this initiative!

Internet Regulations

Do you think the Internet should be a completely free public sphere with all its positive and negative sides, or should there be control to avoid pornography or terror sites? Where does the responsibility of control reside?

The internet is a widely used mass medium accessed by anyone worldwide. It has been described as the “network or networks”- Described by Helen Roberts as the 'anything, anytime, anywhere' network (Roberts.1996). And now can be accessed virtually anywhere by numerous means – Mobile phones, datacards, laptops, portable game consoles. It is our advances in technology that allow users to connect to the internet anywhere by using various internet compatible devices. The internet is a source where people can access a range of information that would not normally be available to them through other alternative means- This data restriction in the outside world maybe the result of their age (Roberts. 1996).

The pornography and gambling industries have both taken full advantage of the internet and, according to Roberts, ‘often provide a significant source of advertising revenue for other websites’. Although governments around the world have attempted to place restrictions on both industries, the internet definitely makes it difficult to stop the popularity of such material. This widespread access to such normally restrictive information throws up many ethical debates regarding whether or not and to what extent should the internet be regulated.

In my opinion it definitely should. The advances in out technology in the past have all attracted various methods of regulation and control- our television and film mediums all hold classification restrictions and warnings, why not our internet sites? If a website contains information only suitable to a certain audience, then it should be viewed only by that audience. Take the Big Brother ‘Turkey Slapping’/assault incident. It was not screened on television due to classification issues but any person was able to view the bedroom scene via the net.In my opinion internet restriction and control is a question of commonwealth power. The question I’m proposing is how now? Why wasn’t the growth of the internet intercepted by government restrictions in previous years?